On May 11, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
It doesn't matter which physical interface transmits the packet.
Well, in the general sense, I suppose not. The computer can put whatever it wants in an Ethernet frame, and as long as it's valid for the receiving system, it will work.
The OP asked for an RFC showing why this is forbidden. It is not. It works fine. I stated many times that several implementations deny your ability to do this, but the "rules" permit it just fine.
Another example: Imagine a web server with two uplinks in _different_ subnets running Quagga.
That's a different scenario entirely. Diverse routes work fine because all the intermediate routers work the same way I describe above: They don't care where the packet came from, they don't know about "connections", they just forward packets to the destination.
Do you even read your own posts? Specifically: On May 11, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
Either way, if the packet *from* X was addressed *to* B but the response comes back from *A*, then host X is going to drop the packet as invalid/irrelevant/etc.
The receiving host X does not care (or even know) if A and B are in the same prefix. Intermediate systems have nothing to do with it as they do not touch the source IP address in the packet. (We are obviously ignoring NAT/PAT, etc.) So if it works with "diverse routes", it works without diverse routes. In other words, you contradicted yourself. Don't worry, you are in good company in this thread. The OP alone did that 4 times by my count, and I stopped reading his posts because he did it so often. To summarize: Two physical interfaces on one machine in the same prefix is allowed. There is no RFC against it - just the opposite. So quit arguing over "but my $THING doesn't support it properly" or "but it will break $SOMETHING" or whatever your favorite hang-up is. -- TTFN, patrick